Menstrual cycle and oral contraceptives’ effects on growth hormone response to sprinting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the impact of the menstrual cycle and oral contraceptive (OC) use on the growth hormone response to non-motorized treadmill sprinting. Nine monophasic OC users (21.5 ± 4.7 years old), and 8 normally menstruating women (NM; 21.4 ± 2.9 years old) participated in the study. Each participant completed 2 main trials, each consisting of an all-out 30-s treadmill sprint. The NM group performed one trial in the midfollicular phase (NM follicular) and one in the midluteal phase (NM luteal); the OC group's trials occurred one week into the start of the pill-taking cycle and once during the week in which pills were not taken.Venous blood samples were analyzed for growth hormone, pH, lactate, glucose, and progesterone concentrations. Peak and mean power output did not differ between the groups or with menstrual phase, or between the OC-free and OC trials. Integrated growth hormone was greater in the OC group than in the NM group (p = 0.04) with no phase difference (p = 0.80, mean (SD); NM follicular: 421 (335) and NM luteal: 345 (304) vs. OC free: 737 (471) and OC: 758 (389) µg·L(-1)·90 min(-1)). Blood lactate was higher in the OC group than in the NM group (p = 0.007) and, conversely, pH was lower in the OC group (p = 0.01). These results demonstrate that OC users who take high-androgenicity pills have a higher growth hormone response to sprint running than do normally menstruating women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".